Message from @I am dead inside
Discord ID: 653002863412379678
The author is referring to people like David Koch and Paul Singer, who pour billions into propagating loose immigration policies and low taxes for their parasitic organizations
> Citation needed. Why would AntiFa being communist/socialist mean they would likely stand with all American workers, including whites?
The people being referred to here are White workers from the Rust Belt, who overwhelmingly voted for Trump due to his promises of bringing jobs back, tariffs on China and immigration control
These people are socially conservative and staunch Nationalists and Antifa would kill them if they could get away with it
> So the base assumption was that AntiFa are radically liberal, but since they are not actually liberal or individualist, the resulting conclusion that "uniting along class is antithetical to their aims" is absurdly false. Reality spits in the face of that idea (AntiFa have been highly effective at mobilizing as a collective and shutting down speech from pro-individualist pro-capitalist speakers, i.e. stopping individualist endeavors by use of collectivist authoritarian means).
Antifa is not really "uniting along class lines", but uniting against what they see as unjust evils in society and stamping it out with the help of the same Capitalist class they seem to hate
Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. all peddle propaganda that are in line with Antifa's views and rarely does Antifa ever get censored, instead it is their enemies that are censored heavily
"Tucker is much more concerned and has done more to advance their interests than entire Antifa combined" I see it's big brain hour here again
on a side note: some policemen in Germany got under investigation for being nazis because they were trying to stop some eco extremists
"Eco extremists"?
the extinction rebellion types
just more violent
cause everything is more violent in germany
> Advocates of anarchism and council communism promote free association as the practical basis for the fundamental transformation of society at all levels, from the everyday level (such as the search of a libertarian interpersonal relationship, critique of the family, consumerism, criticism of conformist and obedient behavior) to the level of world society as a whole (such as the fight against the state and against the ruling class in all countries, the destruction of national borders, support for self-organized struggle of the oppressed, attacks on property, support to wildcat strikes and to workers and unemployed autonomous struggles).
Ok
A lot to unpack.
1) Please elaborate on "libertarian left". What makes a libertarian left-wing as opposed to right-wing? What is it that makes a libertarian right-wing? And also please explain why you think libertarian left are individualist, and also how could they in some cases be capitalist? And is the point of contention just about property rights or other things as well, and how exactly is it about property rights?
Lastly, why do you call the libertarian left "anarchist"?
2) What is the power structure of the libertarian left? How does racial nationalism threaten that power structure? And from what does it follow that WN's and Paleocons are the most deplatformed group?
3) You were blaming hyper-individualism for AntiFa running wild. AntiFa are not individualist, and my explanation for that had nothing to do with open borders. So your explanation for why AntiFa would support open borders does not explain why the AntiFa is not being stopped. No hyper-individualist would support mob rule, but AntiFa is mob rule. They shut down speech, not policies, and are therefore not hyper-individualists. They attack the wrong people, and therefore judging by their actions, their actions must be considered authoritarian - one in the form of a mob, and seemingly state-sanctioned since officials refuse to defend marchers and speakers from this mob, in fact it appears that police is sometimes ordered to enhance conflicts.
4) Democracy is indeed anti-individualism, and yes an absolute democracy would be a tyranny (another example of mob rule). That is why democracy should not be praised, and it should never be absolute.
It is true that open borders are an example of anarchism, and of absolute individualism, however the reality of the situation is that border policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. For example in a welfare state, individualism/anarchism is not a given in the first place, therefore open borders would still interfere with individualism/anarchism in such a setting, as it would enhance the already present authoritarianism of the welfare state. Thus when considering border policy, and arguing in favor of open borders, one must first eliminate the welfare state (among other things) if one is to be true to individualism/anarchism. AntiFa does not support the elimination of such government intervention like the welfare state, and can therefore not be considered an anarchist group.
5) Koch can propagate whatever he wants. We have the same right, so we can propagate other things. That's the marketplace of ideas and it's a good thing.
6) AntiFa are a confused lot, they are in favor of things and against things that conflict with each other, because they lack a coherent understanding of political philosophy. Therefore to think that their actions must make sense is asking too much. We should simply judge them by their actions, and their actions scream incoherent authoritarianism.
7) There is no "capitalist class", please use a different term. Many capitalists are against AntiFa, including me. If you're arguing that there's money behind AntiFa, fine. But that's a meaningless argument, as it is to be expected that all sorts of groups are being supported by certain wealthy people, and this doesn't have to be for any good reasons.
I should add that in some areas AntiFa are in fact being shut down very effectively by police. Not everywhere are they allowed to run wild.
> 1) Please elaborate on "libertarian left". What makes a libertarian left-wing as opposed to right-wing? What is it that makes a libertarian right-wing? And also please explain why you think libertarian left are individualist, and also how could they in some cases be capitalist? And is the point of contention just about property rights or other things as well, and how exactly is it about property rights?
> Lastly, why do you call the libertarian left "anarchist"?
The main contention between libertarian left and libertarian right are about property rights. Both of them, otherwise, are mostly against the state, pro deregulation of drugs, pro decriminalization of non violent crimes, gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism etc.
Anarchism (non Ancap) will be included in the venn diagram of the libertarian left. Other ideologies which would fall under libertarian left are Geo-Libertarianism and Market Socialism
I call Antifa as Anarchists and libertarianism was originally used as a term for Anarchists like Lysander Spooner and Max Stirner. It was co-opted by Rothbard et al. to morph into propertarianism (Minarchy, AnCap, Hoppean etc.)
I'll quote Rothbard himself on this
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."
Source: https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Betrayal%20of%20the%20American%20Right_2.pdf
This is another example of behind the scenes semiotic subversion which eventually shapes societies for generations
A good example of left libertarian and right libertarian split would be the "Civil Rights" issue. It regarded that businesses serving to the public cannot discriminate based on gender, race and other "protected classes". Anarchists and other left libertarians would support it since they view it as unjust repression of the individual by the landowners. Right Libertarians should be against it on principle, since it violates property rights, but most of them don't oppose it anyway.
> 2) What is the power structure of the libertarian left? How does racial nationalism threaten that power structure? And from what does it follow that WN's and Paleocons are the most deplatformed group?
The current power structure/establishment has Neoliberals at the helm, with both mainstream parties upholding different aspects of that ideology for various reasons. Add to that the political donor class who heavily invest in furthering these viewpoints and the big tech monopoly which is controlled by the same people.
The common point among these factions would be social liberalism and open borders. Even though they claim to be against the establishment, Antifa are just tools to propagate these views which are common between them and the establishment, instead of fighting for any substantial progress on, say, the Opoid Crisis or the Rust Belt workers etc.
Racial Nationalism threatens this power structure simply because the views of the majority of White Nationalists are directly against the power structure. WN/Paleocons want immigration moratorium, free market on a national level and trade protectionism on a global scale, social conservatism and destruction of parasitic organization.
Third Positionists want most of the same things as the above, except with a Corporatist state or social security net to help the poor.
Neoreactionaries also want most of the same things as WNs, except with a more ruthless Free Market to "cleanse the genepool". Here is an example of a Neoreactionary:
But in general, the Dissident Right is agnostic on economics.
As for the evidence of WN/Paleocons getting the boot, there are countless studies on it done since 2015, when the purges began, throughout sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit etc. and it'd take a while to rigorously document all of it. But I'd point to a few instances where they openly admitted about doing so:
a) Facebook bans White Nationalism and White Separatism in its updated TOS.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707258353/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-separatism-content-from-its-platforms
c) Youtube to purge Dissident Right content on December 10, 2019. They play a clip of Richard Spencer saying "We want a flourishing, healthy White race" as an example of "hateful rhetoric".
https://twitter.com/AmFirstHebrew/status/1201313082104066048
d) Most subreddits banned on Reddit are from the Dissident Right. Research paper celebrats that these bans "deradicalize" users.
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
> 3) You were blaming hyper-individualism for AntiFa running wild. AntiFa are not individualist, and my explanation for that had nothing to do with open borders. So your explanation for why AntiFa would support open borders does not explain why the AntiFa is not being stopped. No hyper-individualist would support mob rule, but AntiFa is mob rule. They shut down speech, not policies, and are therefore not hyper-individualists. They attack the wrong people, and therefore judging by their actions, their actions must be considered authoritarian - one in the form of a mob, and seemingly state-sanctioned since officials refuse to defend marchers and speakers from this mob, in fact it appears that police is sometimes ordered to enhance conflicts.
Antifa is individualist to the degree they adhere to their ideological framework. Classical Anarchism wants to abolish all forms of hierarchy and liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion. They hold that this would bring forth the true liberation of the individual. Anarchist society has no central authority, but instead consists of interconnected communities that use consensus to organize themselves without rulers or bosses.
As for cops and Antifa, you can go on any Antifa/Anarchist related forum on the net and will find several instances of people calling for the death of all cops, slogans like ACAB etc.
> 4) Democracy is indeed anti-individualism, and yes an absolute democracy would be a tyranny (another example of mob rule). That is why democracy should not be praised, and it should never be absolute.
It is true that open borders are an example of anarchism, and of absolute individualism, however the reality of the situation is that border policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. For example in a welfare state, individualism/anarchism is not a given in the first place, therefore open borders would still interfere with individualism/anarchism in such a setting, as it would enhance the already present authoritarianism of the welfare state. Thus when considering border policy, and arguing in favor of open borders, one must first eliminate the welfare state (among other things) if one is to be true to individualism/anarchism. AntiFa does not support the elimination of such government intervention like the welfare state, and can therefore not be considered an anarchist group.
The difference is that open borders in and of itself is not causing the welfare state, so the principled position of any hyper individualist would still be pro open borders, even if they are against the welfare state. Some also argue that open borders would overload the welfare state and cause it to collapse, which is ultimately a good thing for Anarchists.
There are others like the CATO institute who argue for open borders and claim that illegals don't use much the welfare state. They advocate against building a wall, propose Congress to pass a law outlawing welfare for non citizens and then call for politicians to encourage more immigration: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state
So both from a utilitartian and deontological POV, it shouldn't be problematic for an Anarchist to support open borders.
> 5) Koch can propagate whatever he wants. We have the same right, so we can propagate other things. That's the marketplace of ideas and it's a good thing.
> 6) AntiFa are a confused lot, they are in favor of things and against things that conflict with each other, because they lack a coherent understanding of political philosophy. Therefore to think that their actions must make sense is asking too much. We should simply judge them by their actions, and their actions scream incoherent authoritarianism.
> 7) There is no "capitalist class", please use a different term. Many capitalists are against AntiFa, including me. If you're arguing that there's money behind AntiFa, fine. But that's a meaningless argument, as it is to be expected that all sorts of groups are being supported by certain wealthy people, and this doesn't have to be for any good reasons.
Then its just semantics that we differ on. I'm referring to them as "Capitalist class" because of the fact that the money they put behind puppets like Antifa and orgs like big tech to censor dissent only advance Neoliberalism. I'm aware that one can be a Capitalist and also be against all of this, case in point the Founders of the US who were White Nationalists. But I will continue to use this term because most people are ignorant of this connection and it is an easily digestable term for the masses.
AFAIK, Alt Hype is also a sort of Neoreactionary
From the comments of one of his previous channels
"In a police shootout, where the cost of payoffs is lower than the consideration for safety of the collateral pedestrians nearby...
You, just know something is seriously fucked up."
"So I oppose dygenic, degenerate policies that erode traditional values like the welfare state, which is anti-Darwinian and degenerate." Lmao how the fuck did we reach the point where a bunch of random low lives think that their idiotic useless beliefs could have the slightest of impact on the world? When did we reach the point that these oxygen thieves are taken seriously by a small part of humanity?
Jesus fucking Christ Sherman missed a ton of spots
Ok degenerate Commie
What is even going on here?
Lmao the only piss poor excuses of a retort these low lives can concoct out of their rectal cavities are the same ad hoc vomited pathetic "memes" of muh "ok _insert enemy demographic_"
@Goddess Tyche The long response was to ETBrood
t. Andrew Popa 2.0, the brainlet unable to search for a reference